Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Witness speaks in her native language]
Thank you for the invitation.
Before I begin, I want to make an observation. I see a lot of leaders around the table. This tells me something. We're here again to tell you about a very serious situation that's facing our people who are living in the communities. I think that if the seriousness was not something we experience every day, we probably wouldn't be sitting here all together at the same time. I simply wanted to make that observation.
I would like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting me to appear today on behalf of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, which is more commonly known as ITK.
In keeping with the importance of the future of the Kelowna accord, I have prepared a brief that would take longer than the time allotted to allow me to deliver it, so I intend to present to you orally an excerpted version of that brief. But I would ask the committee to accept the entire brief as part of its written record of proceedings.
Much remains to be done on defining an enduring and adaptable partnership between Inuit and the Crown within Canada, but we have made some promising starts. I am mindful of being both an Inuk and a Canadian. I know that Canadians everywhere are conscious that aboriginal peoples are one of the distinguishing features of Canadian life. I know Canadians everywhere regret those things that inhibit and compromise a sense of unity and solidarity between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.
What Canadian isn't appalled at images of the squalid, crumbling, overcrowded housing that characterizes so many aboriginal communities in both the southern and northern reaches of this country? What Canadian isn't aware that the rest of the world takes note when a country that consistently ranks in the top half dozen for overall living standards nevertheless throws up the ugly incongruities of gas-sniffing epidemics in aboriginal communities and of roadblock confrontations?
These are not only aboriginal problems. These are not only aboriginal issues. These are Canadian problems and they are Canadian issues that demand and deserve the attention, energies, creativities, and resources of all of us, no more so than the Parliament of Canada.
I would similarly like to commend members of the House of Commons as a whole for referring this bill for a more detailed review by this committee. The fate of the Kelowna accord is too important to be mired in short-term or petulant politics. Bill C-292 is more than a private member's bill. It is proof that the death of the Kelowna accord, to use a famous phrase, has been greatly exaggerated. Kelowna lives.
The Kelowna exercise culminated, after more than two years' work by 19 parties, in the Government of Canada pledging to invest $5.1 billion to begin—and I emphasize “to begin”—to deal with the profound gaps in health, education, and housing that cripple aboriginal peoples and that shame our country. I was the Inuit facilitator for all of those round tables, so I know firsthand what people had to say in those round tables. The situation is still the same today. Not too much has changed.
Abandonment of this promise, combined with an absence of any alternative plan, is not a mere detour; it would be a self-declared admission of defeat. A focused, federally funded attack on the social problems that beset aboriginal people is a necessity, not an ideological indulgence. The striking gaps in social and economic well-being that inspired the Kelowna accord are not closing themselves.
Kelowna has four enormous strengths, from an Inuit perspective. First of all, it proceeds from the proposition that the profound gaps that separate aboriginal and other Canadians in the core areas of health, education, and housing are of fundamental importance to both aboriginal and other Canadians, and the responsibility of closing those gaps is shared.
Secondly, it acknowledges that making progress on closing these gaps cannot rely on a one-size-fits-all model.
Thirdly, the Kelowna agreement committed to solid blueprints for achieving progress in the critical areas of health, education, and housing. Regrettably, a number of myths have arisen in relation to Kelowna, including the myth that the entire accord was somehow conjured up in a back room in the absence of facts, figures, or reasons. This is not true. The accord and the blueprints associated with the accord were the product of a multi-year, multi-party effort that featured a lively, intensive, and informed discussion of options and priorities.
Fourth, and finally, the Kelowna accord committed to the achievement of targeted outcomes and allowed for a high level of accountability to the public in the measurement of progress towards those outcomes.
Permit me to give you a few sample facts about the acute social problems facing Inuit. The average lifespan for Inuit women is 14 years less than the average for Canadian women. Tuberculosis rates among Inuit are 70 times greater than the Canadian rate. Data showing similar gaps in the fields of housing and education are also available. For example, as of 2001, 68% of Inuit in Nunavik, which is where I come from, lived in crowded conditions; in Nunavut, 54%; in the Inuvialuit region, 35%; and in Labrador, 28%. The Canadian average for crowded housing is approximately 7%.
The process that culminated in the Kelowna accord did not shy away from these painful realities. Rather it confronted these realities with blueprints for action.
Inuit are a small population in Canada. We are only about 55,000 people. Yet we occupy a very large proportion of the land and marine areas of Canada. Delivery and service challenges are very significant, but they are not insurmountable. For example, mental health is a major concern among Inuit. Although crisis counselling is part of the federal non-insured health benefits program, Inuit cannot readily access this service. Annual cost drivers increases for Inuit health programming have been measured at the 14% level, while Health Canada is struggling with a 3% program cap.
The Kelowna accord is a frank acknowledgement that in a monetized economy, money may not solve all the social problems, but the absence of targeted and creative investments in basic social infrastructure and programming will guarantee their persistence.
The national chief talked about their action plan. We also have an Inuit action plan. Our regions have developed this national action plan together and we have submitted it to the Government of Canada. We have been talking to the Government of Canada about how we might be able to implement it.
I'd like to talk about another interest in implementing the Kelowna accord. There has been much talk in recent years in the courts and elsewhere of the honour of the Crown, and about how the honour of the Crown is engaged when the Crown, representing the people of Canada, interacts with aboriginal people. To Inuit, and I think to Canadians generally as well, acting honourably means beyond anything else keeping your word. The word that was pledged at Kelowna on the federal side was not the word of a particular individual or a particular political party. It was the word of the Prime Minister of Canada, the highest-level servant of the Crown and of the people of Canada and an important custodian of the honour of the Crown and of the honour of the people of Canada.
It has been argued that the Kelowna accord can be discarded because it was not signed, but that is misleading. Everyone at Kelowna understood that commitments made at Kelowna were not intended to constitute a legal contract, but everyone believed the commitments carried great political and moral authority and momentum.